Talk:Collective leadership

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Analysis—Soviet assessments

The ideological justification... was easy to justify. Justifying a justification. Aboctok (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collective leadership. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115173111/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20121018000019&cid=1101 to http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20121018000019&cid=1101

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sources

Just a quick notice/question on "reference" [1] - would the people around here think of the "Christian Science Monitor" (csmonitor.com) as a trustworthy/acceptable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.164.32 (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite it's name, The Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source that mostly provides secular reporting. Feel free to read more here [1] (external source) and here [2] (where you can find discussions about these issues on Wikipedia). --JECE (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]